Could the best available AA have saved Force Z?

Shortround6 said:

Ideally. with the aid of retrospectroscope, the British should have rounded up just about every 40mm Bofors gun in British commonwealth (around 100?) and mounted them on the PoW and Repulse in Oct of 1941 before sail the ships to the far east after pulling any less than main battery guns needed to allow for deck space and weight.

Click to expand...

Production of the hand worked land service single air cooled Bofors had begun in Britain in early 1939. 1,233 were produced in 1940 and 2,712 in 1941. But with the Army having virtually no AA defences it had priority. By the end of 1941 some 136 were in RN hands mostly with the DEMS (but one was on PoW - quarterdeck mount). It would be into 1942 before twin water-cooled Hazemeyer mounts would begin to turn up in RN service.

Shortround6 said:

The 2pdr pom-pom was an individual ship defensive weapon. It didn't have the range to engage aircraft that were attacking a neighboring ship as a general rule. The Bofors gun had more range and were more useful.

Click to expand...

That all depends on ammunition used.

Navweaps gives the 2pdr Mk.VIII with High Velocity rounds, the main type used in WW2, as having a max range of 5,000 yards and an effective range of 1,700 yards. While it credits the Bofors with a greater range it notes that most British ammunition types were designed to self destruct at 3,000-3,500 yards (US rounds 4,000-5,000 yards) to prevent friendly fire accidents.

But the Japanese Rikko units trained to drop their torpedoes at 1,000m but against Force Z pressed home to 500-800m.

EwenS said:

and an effective range of 1,700 yards.

Click to expand...

EwenS said:

t3,000-3,500 yards

Click to expand...

how far away were the other ships when doing high speed avoidance maneuvers?

Ability of the 2pdr to provide supporting fire to another high speed maneuvering ship is not impossible, just difficult.
Bofors gun, even we rate it at 2500yds is quite a bit better. The two large ships shouldn't a mile and half apart or else they are fighting independent battles.

Thank you on the correction for the army Bofors guns.
Perhaps they could have cobbled together a pair on a 2pdr quad mount?
But perhaps the shortage was the mounts (powered) and not the guns.

The British navy had a shortage of just about anything AA, it didn't matter what they had a few of, they didn't have enough to put on even a fraction of their ships.

The US Navy was about the only navy to emphasis the medium AA gun in it's AA role. Most other navies just tried to point surface guns skyward and accept the lower rates of fire and slower traverse and elevation. The US knowing sacrificed the surface capability of the the guns (shorter range) for the AA. Due to luck the 5in/38 turned out to be pretty good for ship to ship as the extra range of the other navy's destroyer guns was something of an illusion. Long range gunnery from destroyers being very difficult due to roll/pitch/yaw. US also got lucky because the the proximity fuse was easier to fit into the 5in shell that 3.7-4.7 in shells. Something that nothing to do with the selection of the 5in/38.

Admiral Beez said:

Of the Royal Navy's fast BB/BCs, HMS Repulse had the worst AA of them all. Meanwhile HMS Prince of Wales had at best a sketchy AA radar suite and relied mainly on the mediocre 5.25" DP twins. Assuming some months for procurement and shipyard planning, what's the best reasonable AA and fire control we can give the two ships by October 1941? Putting aside feasibility, can it make a difference?

Unfortunately we're too early for the RN introduction of the 40mm Bofors, and years before the RN had proximity fuses. But we can give both ships advanced radar and AA fire control, add more 2pdr multiple pom-poms and Oerlikon 20 mm cannons, and swap out Repulse's low angle 4" for QF 4.5-inch like on HMS Renown.

Click to expand...

As stated by others PoW's AA suite was state of the art in Dec 1941. Here's what the IJN thought about the 5.25in guns:

Prince of Wales was desperately unlucky in being crippled so early in the action, and neither Captain Leach nor his crew had much chance to show what they were worth after that. Her 5.25-in. guns were a menace to the Japanese aircraft to the end, and their Official History pays this tribute.

The anti-aircraft fire of the British ships was extremely fierce and the damage suffered by the aircraft bombing from a straight and level approach at high altitude was very great. Consider just the Takeda squadron of eight aircraft which bombed last, when Prince of Wales had already reduced speed to about 6 knots and was sinking. Five of Takeda's aircraft were hit. *

This damage was caused by just two turrets, S1 and S2; how effectively might the full complement of these guns have performed had they not been robbed of power and denied a level platform by the early damage and the resulting list of Prince of Wales.† (THE END OF THE BATTLESHIP ERA MIDDLEBROOK and MAHONEY)

Click to expand...

What would have helped immensely would have been a balanced force with a proper escort of modern cruisers and destroyers. Add a couple of modern Town or Dido class cruisers and say a couple Tribals and several Hunt class destroyers would have greatly increased the AA power of Force Z and forced the TBs to fly through a powerful AA screen.

Shortround6 said:

Perhaps they could have cobbled together a pair on a 2pdr quad mount?
But perhaps the shortage was the mounts (powered) and not the guns.

Click to expand...

I think you have an unrealistic view on when various guns and mounts were introduced to service.

US
In Dec 1941 the main light AA weapons were the 0.5" MG and the quad 1.1".

20mm Oerlikon - acquisition approved Nov 1940. 379 produced in 1941. It was only beginning to appear In the Fleet.
Mark 1 40mm twin water cooled mount - pilot model Jan 1942. First ship fitment July 1942 on destroyer Coghlan DD-606
Mark 2 40mm quad water cooled mount - pilot model April 1942. First fitment on gunnery training ship Wyoming in June 1942.

UK
Quad 0.5" and various quad and octuple pom-pom mounts were the main AA weapons. Quad pom-poms were still being manufacturedcand fitted in 1945.

20mm Oerlikon ordered from Swiss manufacturer late 1939 but fall of France limited deliveries so probably less than 100 in service by the end of 1940. At same time a licence and production drawings were acquired for UK production. But problems experienced in achieving production so it was late 1941 before these guns started to become available.

The first dedicated naval 40mm mount was the water cooled twin Mk.IV Hazemeyer, based on a Dutch mount, fully stabilised and with Type 282 radar on the mount. More sophisticated than the US Mk.1. First fitted to sloop Whimbrel in Nov 1942 with ship completing Jan 1943. The utility Mk.V (equivalent to the US Mk.1 but incorporating British components including some from the quad pom pom) entered service in 1945.

The 2pdr was available in 1941/early 1942. the Bofors was not.
Thread is something of a what it.
If the water cooled Bofors was not available what was?
The British changed their minds later and a bunch of single air cooled Bofors went to sea in a lot of smaller British ships.
The 40mm Bofors was usable in a single manual mount, Power operation was much more desirable.
In late 1941 the British don't have many choices available for powered mounts. The Hazemeyer mount showed up on a Dutch ship it 1940. It wasn't ready for British service for years.
There is no twin 2pdr power mount.

Maybe it would take too long to put a pair of air cooled Bofors guns on a quad 2pdr base/mount.

The British .5 in wasn't worth much, neither was the American .50cal.

About the only thing you can fit quickly that has much effect (scattered 12pdrs are only good for morale..............until the bombs hit) are the twin 4in mounts.

Shortround6 said:

The 2pdr was available in 1941/early 1942. the Bofors was not.
Thread is something of a what it.
If the water cooled Bofors was not available what was?
The British changed their minds later and a bunch of single air cooled Bofors went to sea in a lot of smaller British ships.
The 40mm Bofors was usable in a single manual mount, Power operation was much more desirable.

Click to expand...

In 1945 both 2pdr and 40mm barrels were used to replace the two 20mm barrels on Oerlikon Mk.V powered mounts as part of the anti-kamikaze upgrade as well as fitting single Mk.III Bofors on ships of ALL sizes. The USN also used single air cooled 40mm in some off their upgrades.

Shortround6 said:

In late 1941 the British don't have many choices available for powered mounts. The Hazemeyer mount showed up on a Dutch ship it 1940. It wasn't ready for British service for years.
There is no twin 2pdr power mount.

Click to expand...

There was a twin 2pdr produced in small numbers pre-war for the Army. But the Bofors became available.

Shortround6 said:

Maybe it would take too long to put a pair of air cooled Bofors guns on a quad 2pdr base/mount.

The British .5 in wasn't worth much, neither was the American .50cal.

About the only thing you can fit quickly that has much effect (scattered 12pdrs are only good for morale..............until the bombs hit) are the twin 4in mounts.

Click to expand...

Shortround6 said:

Air cover for Force Z was easy.
Use the bloody RADIO!!!
Keeping the location of Force Z secret by using radio silence so your own land based planes don't know where you are wasn't the smartest trick ever pulled.

Click to expand...

It was a dumb move on Phillips part. The RAF had Buffaloes ready for air cover, and these would have torn apart the Nells and Bettys. Maybe a few Blenheim fighters too? Was the air search radar and control room on HMS Prince of Wales capable of vectoring RAF fighters?

Maybe Phillips was thinking of Lütjens and his breaking of radio silence 27 weeks earlier leading to his doom?

Shortround6 said:

how far away were the other ships when doing high speed avoidance maneuvers?

Click to expand...

To give you some indication, USN Fleet Instructions included standard fleet dispositions for various circumstances.

From 1943 for carrier groups a typical fair weather disposition would see a ship acting as Fleet Guide at the centre of a TG, with the carriers (usually 3-4) spaced around a circle 2,000-2,500 yards from the centre, heavy escorts (3-7 cruisers and Battleships) at 3,000-4,500 yards and a ring of escorting destroyers at 6,000-9,000 yards from the centre. Exact distances depended on the submarine threat. The less the submarine threat the greater the amount of ocean the formation could take up. A number of radar picket destroyers could be outside that, numbers depending on the number of DD available.

When the TG came under air attack the whole formation would tighten up. Carriers at 2,000 yards from centre, with the escorts (Battleships,cruisers and destroyers) closed up to 3,000+ yards from centre (exact distance depending on number of heavy ships present and see below re ammunition), with a handful of destroyers further out (4) for early warning. Destroyer numbers increased as the war went on but were generally in the order of 12-16.

These formations built on early War experience. There is a comment:-

"Interval between anti-aircraft screens and the diameter of the inner screen is often determined by the range at which the self-destruction of heavy automatic weapon ammunition operates and other ballistic features."

And as for "high speed", TG operating speed was set by the force commander and was usually in the order of 15-25 knots. The objective was to maintain TG cohesion and therefore its defensive capabilities. So individual ships were manoeuvring around their designated stations in the TG not haring around all over the place.

Edit:- The RN favoured line ahead formations for its heavy ships when the fleet was at sea with escorts disposed around them depending on numbers available, before adopting US practices in 1945. But other dispositions were used for convoy operations.

Shortround6 said:

how far away were the other ships when doing high speed avoidance maneuvers?

Click to expand...

Your post reminded me of how many RN carriers and battleships collided with other ships.

HMS Hood and HMS Renown


View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UXLQX9agkMo
HMS King George V



HMS Illustrious and HMS Formidable



HMS Glorious



HMS Hermes

don4331 said:

E elbmc1969 : I would hope that Hermes would be able to operate 4 plane cap over each of Forces Z and my slow force of Hermes/Durban/Stronghold. Add 4 more planes on deck - ( 2 and 2 replacements/ the ability to surge CAP). The remaining 4 to 8 planes aboard Hermes would be to ensure serviceability/losses/restore CAP over the carrier force. And that's as good as any single carrier could provide in '41. I'm taking advantage of Skua being fighter/bomber/observation plane (and limited numbers) to justify single airframe. Any other carrier is going to want squadrons of attack aircraft, so have no more fighters for CAP in '41.

Click to expand...

You're not doing the math.

How long does it take each aircraft to take off an get on station (this includes climbing to altitude)?

How much time does it take for each aircraft to get back to the carrier and land?

How much fuel/time reserve does each aircraft get to intercept bogies, chase off shadowers, and engage in combat?

What is the aircraft's actual time on station?

How much servicing time does the aircraft need until it can launch again?

How hard are you going to push your aircraft and pilots? Repeated carrier operations are exhausting. Aircraft can be sent back up, but without significant maintenance breaks, the chance of a mechanical failure increase with each flight.

With all of these factors, how many aircraft can you maintain continuously on station over each force?

Show me math that works and I'll happily accept your argument.

Note that for the first half of 1942, the American carriers often maintained a two-ship CAP, sometimes four. Maintaining four over Hermes and four over a remote point (Force Z) requires strong evidence.

Admiral Beez said:

Your post reminded me of how many RN carriers and battleships collided with other ships.

HMS Hood and HMS Renown


View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UXLQX9agkMo
HMS King George V

View attachment 726891

HMS Illustrious

HMS Glorious

View attachment 726892

HMS Hermes

View attachment 726893

Click to expand...

Collisions between ships at sea have gone on for centuries, probably since man first went to sea. Even today navies are not immune. Here is a selection from through the years in addition to the above that immediately come to mind:-

USS Washington (first photo) & Indiana (second photo) in Feb 1944.

KMS Prinz Eugen & Leipzig in Oct 1944 (plenty of other photos of this event around both before and after the ships were separated)

The carrier USS Wasp sank the destroyer Hobson in a collision in 1952. She was given a quick repair by acquiring the bow of her sister Hornet, then undergoing modernisation, and was back at sea in 10 days.

Battleship USS Wisconsin collided with the destroyer Eaton in May 1956 and received the bow of the incomplete battleship Kentucky.

USS John F Kennedy & the guided missile cruiser Belknap (which suffered badly from fire damage to her largely aluminium superstructure)

HMAS Melbourne sank / damaged two destroyers in collisions in the 1960s. HMAS Voyager in Feb 1964
Then the USS Frank E Evans in June 1969

Ark Royal and the Soviet Kotlin class destroyer in Nov 1970 (this includes the Soviet verion of events)

Aug 2013 the Canadian GMD HMCS Algonquin collided with the supply vessel HMCS Protecteur during a towing exercise that went wrong

The guided missile destroyer USS Fitzgerald in June 2017

The guided missile destroyer USS John S McCain Aug 2017

Norwegian frigate Helge Ingstad in 2018 resulted in her sinking and total loss.

Merchant ships are just as susceptible to collision. One of the first I recall reading of was the coming together of the MS Stockholm and the liner SS Andrea Doria in the Atlantic in 1956 when the latter sank.

And then there is a collection of warships lost or damaged due to navigational errors resulting in groundings:-
Honda point disaster 1923 - 9 USN destroyers grounded with 7 being total losses

HMS Dauntless ran aground in Halifax harbour in Canada in 1928
HMS Effingham which hit rocks off Norway in May 1940 and couldn't be salvaged before the British / French withdrawal.
USS Wisconsin & New Jersey in separate incidents in the 1950s
HMS Vanguard in the entrance to Portsmouth harbour in 1960 when being towed to the breakers yard.
Guided missile destroyer HMS Nottingham July 2002 off Lord Howe Island
Guided missile cruiser USS Port Royal in Feb 2009

When you read through warship histories in WW2, it is surprising just how many collisions arose. Bad weather, crowded anchorages, ships dragging anchors, colliding while avoiding enemy ships or aircraft etc etc.

Edit:- a little reported collision in WW2 was when the destroyer HMS Quilliam collided with the carrier Indomitable in fog on 20 May 1945 of the Sakishima Gunto. The carrier suffered only minor damage but the destroyer was not so lucky, having to be sent home to the UK for repairs before being transferred to the RNethN.

EwenS said:

Collisions between ships at sea have gone on for centuries, probably since man first went to sea. Even today navies are not immune. Here is a selection from through the years in addition to the above that immediately come to mind:-

Click to expand...

Excellent info there. We can add HMCS Preswrver colliding with HMS Penelope.


View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=X7UcB16Fnmc
I wonder how many of these collisions were due to negligent operation like HMS Victoria and Camperdown rather than a loss of situational awareness in weather, like the battleship HMS Montagu ignoring warnings and driving herself onto the rocks; or mechanical breakdown.